Thank you!

Thanks to your advocacy efforts on our behalf, we're happy to report that the recently passed Omnibus Spending Bill includes a very small increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities! While our work is not over with regards to the upcoming 2018 budget to be passed in the fall, the Omnibus Spending Bill represents an endorsement of the important work that the humanities do for our communities. These funds will continue to support our work of providing free access to authoritative content about Virginia's history and culture.

Ely Mound Archaeological Site

The Ely Mound Archaeological Site is located adjacent to Indian Creek,
near Rose Hill, in Lee County, and
dates to the latter part of the Mississippian Period (ca. AD 1200–1650). Lucien Carr, the assistant curator
of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University, excavated
approximately one-sixth of the nineteen-feet-high mound in the 1870s. Although the
lower half of the mound contained few indications of human occupation, the upper half
yielded ash, shell beads, pottery, small gaming disks of stone
or pottery, and a large, polished, sandstone bi-concave discoidal used to play the
game of "chungke." Since then, no
further excavation has occurred. The mound, which Carr has connected to Cherokee Indians or their
ancestors, provides evidence counter to the so-called Lost Race theory, which argues
that American Indians were
not sophisticated enough to build such mounds. Early archaeologists suggested that
the mound-builders were instead Vikings or others such as the "lost tribes of
Israel." MORE...

In This Entry

Explore Virginia

Share It

Site Description

Ely Mound is a traditional mound, a manmade
formation consisting of raised earth and stones over a grave site. Such burial
mounds occur throughout the world; in Europe, especially, they are called tumuli,
barrows, or kurgans. Early in the 1870s Lucien Carr tested the mound, naming it
after its owner, Robert Ely. In Carr's 1877 report he described the mound, which
had been in cultivation for many years, as a truncated oval … about three
hundred feet in circumference at the base, and nineteen feet in height, as
measured in the excavation or shaft, sunk through the centre. On the top there
was a level space, oval in shape, the diameters being respectively about
fifteen and forty feet. At a distance of eight to ten feet from the brow of the
mound, on the slope, there were found, buried in the earth, the decaying stumps
of a series of cedar post which I was informed by Mr. Ely at one time
completely encircled it.

From the posts Carr surmised "that the summit of the mound had at one time been
occupied by some sort of a building—possibly a rotunda or council chamber."

The Investigation

Carr's testing of the Ely Mound, which
occurred sometime between 1876 and 1879, consisted of sinking a shaft, six feet by
four feet, from the center to the circumference. Two human graves were encountered during the
first day of excavation. Grave number one, ten feet deep in the central shaft,
contained the remains of two children. Associated with the children were a black bear canine tooth,
two quarts of shell beads of various sizes and shapes, two shell ear pins, and a
shell gorget, or decorative collar, with a weeping-eye motif. Grave number two,
six feet deep in the side trench, held the remains of a woman with shell
beads.

Lucius H. Cheney, a student in the Harvard School of Geology, and Charles B.
Johnson, of Gibson's
Station, in Lee County, were excavating the human remains when their
discovery caused spectators to rush suddenly to the edge of the excavation. The
weight of the spectators caused the sides of the excavation shaft to collapse,
covering the men with soil. Although the men were quickly dug out, Johnson was
severely bruised and Cheney was dead; the weight of the soil had broken his back
or neck.

Carr resumed excavations one week later. Two
days of steady digging extended the central shaft and trench down to sterile
subsoil. For the sake of safely, the excavation's soil profiles were stepped up,
opening a larger portion of the mound than had been originally intended, or
approximately one-sixth of the mound. During this work, grave number three was
encountered, which held the remains of an adult male. Associated with these
remains were two large projectile points; a small pile of white quartz pebbles the
size of peas, believed to be the contents of a turtle shell rattle; and a large,
polished, sandstone bi-concave disk used to play the game of "chungke." Carr noted
that the lower half of the mound was almost void of all evidence of human
occupation, whereas the upper half contained beds of ash, burnt earth, shell
beads, small gaming disks of stone or pottery, and fragments of pottery, animal
bones, and charred corn and cob. In order to interpret the use and age of the
mound, Carr drew heavily on historical accounts by European explorers of Indian
culture. He directly linked the substructure mound, shell gorget, and "chungke"
stone to descriptions in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century accounts of
comparable structures and objects for other Southeastern Indians, including the
nearby Cherokee Indians.

There is a slight depression at the top of the mound that extends northwest to its
edge, surface evidence of Carr's excavations during the nineteenth century. Ely
Mound retains much of its nineteen-feet height. An apron of soil fill extends to
the southeast, likely evidence of a ramp or series of steps ascending the
southeast side of the mound. Although the mound is well known to local people and
to professional archaeologists, and is readily visible from Highway 58 and
identified by a highway marker, no looting has occurred at the site. Subsequent
excavations have not occurred at the site. Throughout much of the twentieth
century the previous landowner refused to permit excavations in the mound or
adjacent to it. Based on artifacts observed in nearby fields, there also is a
small settlement, or town, associated with the mound. Ely Mound was placed on the
Virginia Landmarks Register and National Register of Historic Places in 1983. As
of the early twenty-first century the mound was protected by an easement.

Conclusions

The Ely Mound is significant in the history of archaeology, for based upon his
investigation, Lucien Carr emphatically rejected the so-called Lost Race theory of
mound-builders in eastern North America. Popular among nineteenth-century American
archaeologists, the Lost Race theory argues that American Indians were not
civilized enough to have built the many earthworks and mound complexes—some of
which covered hundreds, even thousands of acres—that dotted the landscape.
Instead, the mound-builders must have been an earlier people: Welshmen, Norsemen,
Phoenicians, Tartars, Chinese, or even Canaanites, the "lost tribes of Israel."
According to early archaeologists, these more sophisticated and civilized people
were displaced by the American Indians; displacing American Indians, therefore,
was justified. Only by the 1870s, when the Indians were completely subdued, were
archaeologists willing to accept the fact that these same Indians were the direct
descendants of the mound-builders.

Carr, meanwhile, was one of the first archaeologists to definitively link the
Indians at the time of European contact with the mound centers and the artifacts
associated with them. The Ely Mound is probably attributable to people either
closely related to or in direct contact with the ancestors of the Cherokees. The
mound and the associated town hold great potential for archaeological
investigations documenting the spread of Mississippian chieftain cultures up the
Powell, Clinch, and Holston rivers and their interface with the typically less
complex tribal societies in southwestern Virginia.